2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-21-2011 

# R ich a r d R o che v

. Att y Ge n U S A

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-4498

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" R ich a r d R oche v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1628. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/16281

ALD
- 135 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10

- 4498

___________ RICHARD ROCHE , Appellant

v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________ On Appeal fr om the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. C ivil No. 10

- cv
- 04237 ) District Judge: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal due to a Jurisdictional Defect or S ummary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 10, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 21, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Richard Roc he appeals pro se fro m an order dismissing his filing titled “N otice of
Correction and Issuance of C ertificate s
. ” Because no substantial question is presented by2

this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P 10.6.
Richard Roche, Abdiel Fermin Avila, and Felix Roche jointly filed a document in District Court, requesting that their citizenship status be corrected 1 and that they each be
issued a certificate of naturalization.
T he District Court interpreted the pleading as cha llenging three separate immigration and naturalization decisions and determined that each petitioner should file a separate pleading. By o rder entered on October 19, 2010, the District Court construed the pleading as a habeas petition filed solely by Rich ard Roche, terminated Avila and
Felix Roche as parties , and ordered that the Clerk open two separate civil matters for the terminated parties. T he D istrict Court dismissed Richard Roche’s petition without prejudice to his filing of an amended petition tha t clearly identified the particular
naturalization deter mination he wished to challenge, noting that district courts have limited authority to review challenges to naturalization determinations. The District
Court ordered the Clerk to administratively clo se the file and stated that, if Richard Roche did file an amended petition within 30 days , the District Court would reopen the file and address the allegations set forth in the amended petition. Richard Roche did not file an amended petition. Instead, he filed a notice of rejection and correction, stating that he rejected the District Court’s memorandum

1 Attachments to the pleading include declaration s by Richard Roche and Avila renouncing their United States citizenship.3

opinion and order , which he interpreted as a contract. 2 Richard Roche then filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 3 and we exercise de novo
review over the District Court's order dismissing Roc he ’s initial pleading

. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothchild LLP , 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007 )

. The District Court properly dismissed Roche’s petition

. Because district courts have limited jurisdiction over citizenship and nationality claims, s ee 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5), and Richard Roche failed initially and refused to amend to clearly explain his citizenship and naturalization claim s , the District Court was unabl e to determine whether it had authority to act on Roche’s pleading. Accordingly, the District Court properly
dismissed t he petition without prejudice. As no substantial question is presented in this appeal, we will affirm the District
Court’s order dismis sing Roche’ s petition

.

2 It appears from previous filings that Richard Roche is a part icipant in the sovereign citizen movement. See C.A. No. 10

- 4415. His response to the District Court’s order does not constitute a motion for reconsideration that would toll the time to appeal.

3 Although his initial pleading was dismissed without prejudice, Roche rejected the District Court’s opin ion and order, failed to file an amended pleading within 30 days of the District Court’s order, and filed a notice of appeal, thereby declaring his intention to stand on his initial pleading. See Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F. 2d 950, 951

- 52 (3d Cir. 1976).